ISCR Case 96-0047.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 96-0047.h1

deniedNov 13, 1996· Hon. Michael Kirkpatrick· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old defense contractor was denied a DoD security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of illegal drug use, excessive alcohol consumption, and the falsification of information on her security clearance application.

The applicant's drug use included marijuana from 1976 to 1995, cocaine from 1978 to 1979, crack cocaine in 1988 and again from February to May 1993, and single instances of hallucinogenic mushrooms, Quaaludes, and PCP in 1978 and 1977, respectively. She also used amphetamine or methamphetamine twice in 1977. In 1988, she received medical treatment for a condition diagnosed as "substance abuse."

The applicant submitted a National Agency Questionnaire (NAQ) on January 13, 1995, certifying her answers were true and complete. However, she failed to disclose her possession and use of various drugs, including marijuana, which she was still using at the time of signing. This intentional falsification, combined with her drug abuse and excessive alcohol consumption, led the judge to conclude that her reliability and judgment were compromised, resulting in the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a long history of illegal drug use, including marijuana and cocaine, which constituted drug abuse.
The applicant knowingly and willfully falsified material information on her National Agency Questionnaire and a sworn statement regarding her drug use.
The applicant's excessive alcohol consumption and history of substance abuse treatment raised further concerns about her reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A2.3.1raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
H1.A1.1raisedAny Drug Abuse
H1.A1.2raisedIllegal Drug Possession, Including Purchase, Sale
J1.A1.1raisedAny Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged
G2.A2.3raisedDiagnosis by a Credentialed Medical Professional of Alcohol Abuse or Alcohol Dependence

Mitigating

H2.A2.4rejectedSatisfactory Completion of a Drug Treatment Program Prescribed by a Credentialed Medical ProfessionalThe applicant completed a one-week detoxification program but continued drug use afterward.
G2.A2.1rejectedThe Crime Was an Isolated IncidentThe applicant's substance abuse and dishonesty were not isolated incidents.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Government must be able to repose a high degree of trust and confidence in persons granted access to classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 19, 1996
Answer filedFeb 13, 1996Applicant elected to have the case determined on a written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case determined on written record.
Decision dateNov 13, 1996

Cite For

Denial Based on Extensive Drug Use and Falsification of Application Information
Impact of Dishonesty on Security Clearance Eligibility
Consideration of Substance Abuse History in Security Clearance Determinations

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she intentionally falsified material aspects of her personal background during a security clearance screening process.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	On January 13, 1995, as part of a security clearance application process, Applicant signed and submitted a National Agency Questionnaire (NAQ), certifying that her answers were true, complete, and accurate, and acknowledging that any knowing and willful false answers were punishable by fine or imprisonment pursuant to Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1001.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	Since Applicant did not provide information pertaining to her possession and use of marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, hallucinogenic mushrooms, Quaaludes, amphetamine, methamphetamine, or PCP, and considering that Applicant was continuing to smoke marijuana even as of the time that she signed the NAQ, I find that her answer was not true and complete and accurate.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she intentionally falsified material aspects of her personal background during a security clearance screening process.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

2.b

On January 13, 1995, as part of a security clearance application process, Applicant signed and submitted a National Agency Questionnaire (NAQ), certifying that her answers were true, complete, and accurate, and acknowledging that any knowing and willful false answers were punishable by fine or imprisonment pursuant to Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1001.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

2.c

Since Applicant did not provide information pertaining to her possession and use of marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, hallucinogenic mushrooms, Quaaludes, amphetamine, methamphetamine, or PCP, and considering that Applicant was continuing to smoke marijuana even as of the time that she signed the NAQ, I find that her answer was not true and complete and accurate.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
4.a	The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she has a history of excessive alcohol consumption.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
4.b	The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she has a history of excessive alcohol consumption.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
4.c	The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she has a history of excessive alcohol consumption.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
4.d	The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she has a history of excessive alcohol consumption.	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

4.a

The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she has a history of excessive alcohol consumption.

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

4.b

The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she has a history of excessive alcohol consumption.

Against Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

4.c

The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she has a history of excessive alcohol consumption.

Against Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

4.d

The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she has a history of excessive alcohol consumption.

Against Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana from six to twelve times per year from 1976 to 1982, smoking the marijuana by pipe, joint, or bong.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant purchased marijuana about ten times from 1977 to 1982, paying about $5.00 per purchase.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant smoked marijuana one time in 1984, at a high school reunion.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant continued to smoke marijuana two or three times per year from 1984 until October 28, 1995, when she last used marijuana.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant used cocaine four or five times from 1978 to 1979, when she was in college, snorting the cocaine, and 'doing a few lines each time.'	Against Applicant	Cocaine	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant used crack cocaine approximately six times in 1988.	Against Applicant	Cocaine	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant used crack cocaine four times from February to May of 1993, purchasing the crack cocaine on a street corner in the city, spending $10.00 per purchase.	Against Applicant	Cocaine	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant received medical treatment at a hospital for a condition diagnosed as 'substance abuse' from August 31, 1988 to September 5, 1988.	Against Applicant	Drug Diagnosed Disorder	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.i	Applicant used hallucinogenic mushrooms one time in 1978.	Against Applicant	Psilocybin	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—
1.j	Applicant used Quaaludes one time in 1978.	Against Applicant	Prescription Other Misuse	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—
1.k	Applicant used amphetamine or methamphetamine (speed) on two occasions in 1977.	Against Applicant	Methamphetamine	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—
1.l	Applicant used phencyclidine (PCP) ('angel dust') on one occasion in 1977.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant used marijuana from six to twelve times per year from 1976 to 1982, smoking the marijuana by pipe, joint, or bong.

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Frequent

Admitted

—

1.b

Applicant purchased marijuana about ten times from 1977 to 1982, paying about $5.00 per purchase.

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

1.c

Applicant smoked marijuana one time in 1984, at a high school reunion.

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Experimental

Admitted

—

1.d

Applicant continued to smoke marijuana two or three times per year from 1984 until October 28, 1995, when she last used marijuana.

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Occasional

Admitted

—

1.e

Applicant used cocaine four or five times from 1978 to 1979, when she was in college, snorting the cocaine, and 'doing a few lines each time.'

Against Applicant

Cocaine

Experimental

Admitted

—

1.f

Applicant used crack cocaine approximately six times in 1988.

Against Applicant

Cocaine

Frequent

Admitted

—

1.g

Applicant used crack cocaine four times from February to May of 1993, purchasing the crack cocaine on a street corner in the city, spending $10.00 per purchase.

Against Applicant

Cocaine

Frequent

Admitted

—

1.h

Applicant received medical treatment at a hospital for a condition diagnosed as 'substance abuse' from August 31, 1988 to September 5, 1988.

Against Applicant

Drug Diagnosed Disorder

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

1.i

Applicant used hallucinogenic mushrooms one time in 1978.

Against Applicant

Psilocybin

Experimental

Admitted

—

1.j

Applicant used Quaaludes one time in 1978.

Against Applicant

Prescription Other Misuse

Experimental

Admitted

—

1.k

Applicant used amphetamine or methamphetamine (speed) on two occasions in 1977.

Against Applicant

Methamphetamine

Experimental

Admitted

—

1.l

Applicant used phencyclidine (PCP) ('angel dust') on one occasion in 1977.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Experimental

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	The Government alleges in SOR subparagraph 3.a. that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she knowingly and willfully violated the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, a Federal criminal statute.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

The Government alleges in SOR subparagraph 3.a. that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she knowingly and willfully violated the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, a Federal criminal statute.

Against Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

Loading case…

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision